| Summary: | [css-logical] Border side shorthands should not be logical/physical | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Oriol Brufau <obrufau> | ||||||||
| Component: | CSS | Assignee: | Oriol Brufau <obrufau> | ||||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||||||||||
| Severity: | Normal | CC: | darin, esprehn+autocc, ews-watchlist, glenn, gyuyoung.kim, joepeck, koivisto, macpherson, menard, ntim, simon.fraser, webkit-bug-importer | ||||||||
| Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | InRadar | ||||||||
| Version: | WebKit Nightly Build | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||||
| Bug Depends on: | |||||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 236199, 238888 | ||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
This change will also align the implementation with the spec: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-logical/#box > Each set of parallel flow-relative properties and physical properties (IGNORING SHORTHAND PROPERTIES) related by setting equivalent styles on the various sides or dimensions of a box, forms a logical property group. Created attachment 458288 [details]
Patch
Created attachment 458290 [details]
Patch
Comment on attachment 458290 [details]
Patch
Thanks for fixing this!
Created attachment 458372 [details]
Patch
Had to update CSSPropertyAnimation.cpp to avoid an assert failure in debug. Committed r293493 (250026@main): <https://commits.webkit.org/250026@main> All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug and clearing flags on attachment 458372 [details]. |
Currently, these shorthands belong to a logical property group: - border-top - border-right - border-bottom - border-left - border-block-start - border-block-end - border-inline-start - border-inline-end This doesn't make much sense, no need to e.g. map border-block-start to border-top, it should just expand to border-block-start-{width,style,color}. Then we can keep the special behavior confined to the longhands. Right now I don't think this is observable, but this refactoring is needed for bug 236199. My patch there (including this change) was previously reverted, so I guess it's safer to do the refactoring here.